Climate reconstructions based on GDGT and pollen surface datasets from Mongolia and Baikal area: calibrations and applicability to extremely cold–dry environments over the Late Holocene

Dugerdil, Lucas; Joannin, Sébastien; Peyron, Odile; Jouffroy-Bapicot, Isabelle; Vannière, Boris; Boldgiv, Bazartseren; Unkelbach, Julia; Behling, Hermann; Ménot, Guillemette

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1199-2021

Articles | Volume 17, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1199-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1199-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 3

Research article

|

16 Jun 2021

Research article |

| 16 Jun 2021

Climate reconstructions based on GDGT and pollen surface datasets from Mongolia and Baikal area: calibrations and applicability to extremely cold–dry environments over the Late Holocene

Lucas Dugerdil, Sébastien Joannin, Odile Peyron, Isabelle Jouffroy-Bapicot, Boris Vannière, Bazartseren Boldgiv, Julia Unkelbach, Hermann Behling, and Guillemette Ménot

Download

Final revised paper (published on 16 Jun 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Dec 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'some subjects to technical corrections', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Jan 2021
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lucas Dugerdil, 03 Mar 2021
  - RC4: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Mar 2021
    - AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Lucas Dugerdil, 04 Mar 2021
RC2: 'cp-2020-154', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Feb 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lucas Dugerdil, 03 Mar 2021
RC3: 'the review comments', Anonymous Referee #3, 25 Feb 2021
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Lucas Dugerdil, 03 Mar 2021
EC1: 'Comment from Editor on cp-2020-154', Nathalie Combourieu Nebout, 04 Mar 2021

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (04 Mar 2021) by Nathalie Combourieu Nebout

AR by Lucas Dugerdil on behalf of the Authors (04 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Mar 2021) by Nathalie Combourieu Nebout

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Apr 2021)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (08 Apr 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

After reading the rebuttal and the manuscript, I feel that most of my concerns have been addressed. However, I cannot agree with the authors that they still use lake sediments in developing the calibrations for soils. Despite similar GDGT distribution between soil and lake sediments, we cannot simply conclude that GDGTs in lakes are derived from soils, because the study area is very arid and surface runoff is limited. Besides, in situ production of GDGTs in any lakes across the globe appears to be significant.
I suggest you need to show a chromatography figure in the supplementary material which contains the separation of 5-, 6-, and 7-methyl brGDGTs.
Besides, I found a number of typos and language issues, a part of which was shown below. I invite the authors to carefully check the manuscript.
Line 103 ‘on’ changed to ‘in’
Line 141 ‘for’ changed to ‘with’
Line 196 brings
Line 244 C46 GTGTs (GTGTs with….)
Line 339 GDGT-0
Line 340-341 Consider revising this sentence
Line 343 lead to
Line 339, 347 and 348 crenarchaeol
Line 373 the first component
Line 376 as opposed
Line 380 Add an article before ‘very’.
Figure 4 captions Add ‘-‘ after ‘6 and 7’.
Line 374 5-methyl It should be noted that Ia is not 5-methyl brGDGTs. Please delete.
Line 385 applied to
Line 386 Delete ‘the’ before ‘Supplementary’
Line 400 delete on
Line 409 delete of
Line 412 favor
Line 413 drive
Line 437 case community’s parameter
Line 450 ‘archaeal’ changed to ‘bacterial’.
Line 457 respond
Line 544 calibrations
Line 620 appears
Line 625 ‘in’ changed to ‘on’
Line 630 delete ‘from’

Supplementary table 1 I found that the formula for MBT’ is wrong. 5-methyl brGDGTs were missing in the formula. None of 7-methyl brGDGTs should be involved. If you calculate it using this formula. The data for MBT’ might be wrong. Please check the data in the manuscript.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Apr 2021) by Nathalie Combourieu Nebout

AR by Lucas Dugerdil on behalf of the Authors (13 Apr 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (15 Apr 2021) by Nathalie Combourieu Nebout

Dear author,

Thank you for your new manuscript and your response to the second round of comments. I read carefully them and see that you follow the recommendations of the reviewer and insert his requests of corrections in your manuscript. Your paper is now nearly ready to be published. I still have a concern about the figures. Some of them have several items that needs to be modified and for this reason I request technical corrections.

Do not forget that the figures have to be read in good condition at 100% scale to make sure that the reader will not be discouraged and lost with too frequent changes of scale. So, see below my remarks:

• In Figure 1, the scales of the small maps are unreadable, enlarge them. Same with the three labels below the title “number of samples”.

• In Figure 2, please enlarge the labels of sample. This figure would benefit from being in landscape format and full page. Please do it because it is too dense now and the dots are very small.

• In Figure 3, please enlarge all the names (pollen taxa, vegetation types and so on), it is possible even if you conserve the figure at this size.

• In Figure S3, take care with the yellow crosses and triangles, they are very difficult to see. Could you choose another colour or find a way to make them stand out better.

• In the Figure S4, Please enlarge the scale numbers in all parts of the figure and the axis labels everywhere too. The legend of fractions has to be slightly enlarged to make the colour more visible and the characters less small.

Please follow these recommendations. Just a little more work to do before publishing this article. It won't take long. Your paper will go in production when these last amendments done.
Thank you for your willingness in this long review process and for choosing Climate of the Past to publish your interesting work.

Best regards
Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout

Hide

AR by Lucas Dugerdil on behalf of the Authors (16 Apr 2021) Manuscript

Short summary

Since the understanding of Holocene climate change appears to be a relevant issue for future climate change, the paleoclimate calibrations have to be improved. Here, surface samples from Mongolia and Siberia were analyzed to provide new calibrations for pollen and biomarker climate models. These calibrations appear to be more powerful than global calibrations, especially in an arid central Asian context. These calibrations will improve the understanding of monsoon Holocene oscillations.